- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:47:11 +0000
- To: public-sml@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5040 ------- Comment #10 from sandygao@ca.ibm.com 2007-11-09 14:47 ------- The intent sounds good. We do need to separate those 2 cases. I would take a different approach in terms of achieving it. Instead of [1] in comment #9, I would add a more general statement to a place like "7. Conformance Criteria", along the following lines: "During the process of SML model validation, all model (definition and instance) documents are always reachable/available. If any model document is not reachable, then how processors behave is outside the scope of this specification and is not performing SML-validity assessment as defined here." This means almost the same requirement for processors as [1] in comment #9: the operation will not provide a valid or invalid answer. But this aligns better with other exceptional cases. For example, if the processor runs out of memory, it's not reasonable to expect it to answer "unknown". "No answer" is a better answer.
Received on Friday, 9 November 2007 14:47:21 UTC